Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 04-22-2003, 03:39 AM

Meta, you really ought to pay attention to your spelling and attempt to achieve a proper arrangement of your posts. Its the most basic thing! presentation!

Otherwise, cool work guys. Good stuff.

Ted Hoffman · 04-22-2003, 04:49 AM

Kirby,
Whats your take on Iasons response concerning early skeptics questioning the historicity of Jesus? Especially as per his link on early doubters on page 7?
You had stated:

Quote:

The evidence that it was not disputed is that early Christians fielded many objections but never one that the man Jesus didn't exist.

And you later asserted in response to my arguments:

Quote:

I know that what I have written in this thread holds up

So, does your statement above still hold up - in the face of QuentinJ's page? Especially 2 John, Trypho, Marcion, Heretics, Faustus, John Cassian and Socrates Scholasticus.

On another note, and especially connected to Toto's post above, I think its remarkable that even these "deniers" do not make any temporal statements about Jesus and from their statements, one can't tell whether Jesus lived 10 or 200 years earlier.

I think a fine argument can be made from this.

Jayhawker Soule · 04-22-2003, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
Kirby,
Whats your take on Iasons response concerning early skeptics questioning the historicity of Jesus? Especially as per his link on early doubters on page 7?

Specifically regarding ...

Quote:

Trypho, (possibly Rabbi Tarphon), in early 2nd century , reportedly claimed (in the Dialogue with Justin Martyr) :�But Christ - if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere - is unknown...�

As I've suggested elsewhere, there seems little compelling here. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry:

Quote:

[Justin Martyr's] conversion must have taken place at the latest towards A.D. 130, since St. Justin places during the war of Bar-Cocheba (132-135) the interview with the Jew Tryphon, related in his "Dialogue".

This interview is evidently not described exactly as it took place, and yet the account cannot be wholly fictitious.

Tryphon, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., IV, xviii, 6), was "the best known Jew of that time", which description the historian may have borrowed from the introduction to the "Dialogue", now lost. It is possible to identify in a general way this Tryphon with the Rabbi Tarphon often mentioned in the Talmud (Sch�rer, "Gesch. d. Jud. Volkes", 3rd ed., II, 377 seq., 555 seq., cf., however, Herford, "Christianity in Talmud and Midrash", London, 1903, 156).

- see New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Justin Martyr; emphasis added

The entry goes on to suggest that the "Dialogue" was written after the first "Apology" (153-155 CE) but before 161. This would obviously suggest that he is reprising a discussion held 20 years earlier. If this is anywhere near correct, any specific phrase drawn fom this apologetic and attributed to Tryphon is, I would think, entirely suspect and of no evidentiary value one way or the other.

Ted Hoffman · 04-22-2003, 10:59 AM

Thanks for that link CA.
You are speculating about the 20 years - correct?

Metacrock · 04-22-2003, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings Metacrock,

Well,

You claimed he could trace the "empty tomb" back to 50AD.

I showed you were wrong.

Meta =>]NO you haven't showen that. you haven't touched that claim. What I said was that Koster and Crosson both show that the Passion narrative was written in AD50 and that it ends with the empty tomb. That comes from textual analysis in the The Diatesseron and other works. You haven't touched the textual analysis, all you did was dismiss Koster with no analysis of your own. Then you insist that apologists of the second century, not ever important ones, don't mention Jesus by name. That is non responsive.

You provided NO evidence what-so-ever, merely responded with waffle about 1 John.

You were WRONG, there is NO mention of the empty tomb until early-mid 2nd century.

Meta =>That's not a waffle, it's a pancake (ahahhahaha). I said the bit about "what we held with our hands" Is a reference to flesh and blood Jesus. You have no response on that.(ok so wha'ts he talking about then? A car park in Deluth?)

I pointed out Athenagoras has no mention of "Jesus" or "Christ" even in his work "On the Resurrection"

You were wrong.

Meta =>No I wasn't. I didn't deny it. I said it doesn't matter because he's pretty late.

Yet you responded with personal insult.

Meta =>Yes, you are right. that is a personal failing.

Yet again, you were WRONG, but cannot admit it, instead flinging insults in an attempt to muddy the water.

Meta =>I'm just so appauled at your dihonesty and bad research. For example, you say that Heggestipus denies flesh and blood Christ, but he's the one who said that Simeon was Jesus' causin and replaced James as head of the chruch (see Eusebius). How many etherial mythical beings have flesh and blood bothers and cousins?

Furthermore, we all see your posts :
* are full of spelling and grammatical errors, suggesting you don't bother to check your work (you can't even get Koester's name right)

Meta =>I have dyslexia. If I spell checked every post I'd be up all night. I have limited time and I have to get things done. It's not an academic journal, when most people are honest (that is not just trying to make me look bad) they say they have trouble figuring out what I"m saying.

* show repeated reading comprehension faliure,

Meta =>hey look whose talking man! You can't even understand why "invent a christ" is not a deniel of Jesus as a man! And you misrepresent Heggesipus when he's famous for his statment about Jesus flesh and blood relatives.

* show lack of knowledge of the background material,

Meta =>Because I disagee with you hack misconceptions and big foot chasing crack post theoreis that no serious scholar will listent to? I docuement every argument I make. You have offered very little documentation.

* have false statements u supported by evidence,

I've supported everything I've said. What have I not supported? Look at all that stuff from Koester, you have nothing anywhere near as well documented!

* regularly descend to swearing and name calling,

Meta =>I become angry when I see people misrepresenting facts and trying to pass themselves off as learned, when in fact they have no training and no credentails and are merely leading people down the garden path.

* often include personal insults.

Meta =>For that I apologize. But since there is no peer review and no court of offcial sanction to appeal to, such as would be the case if you were in real academia with this stuff (and I know you wouldn't last long in it) I become angry. Because anyone an get on here and say anything. It's up to the poster to remain honest with his sources and his views.

In short, your posts do not show the minimum requirements for polite and rational discourse.

I will not waste any more time on them.

Meta =>that's fine with me because your posts are nothing more than an exercize in wishful thinking.

Metacrock · 04-22-2003, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Crisor
I'm will admit that I am ingnorant when it comes to the HJ (and new to this forum altogether), but, after reading most of the posts on this subject, I was wondering if this might be a possibity: Is it possible that Paul truly thought that Jesus was a real man when he wrote about him? Why would he have any reason to believe otherwise? If Paul got his sources elsewhere, i.e. from someone who also thought Jesus lived, then any writings he would do would reflect that (which they do). Could this not also explain why he does not explain the whole story and give only parts of it?

I think my question is how do we know what Paul (or anybody else who wrote about a HJ) really knew, how much they knew, and who there sources actually were?

Meta =>Well Paul himself (Galations) says he met Peter. So me must have known at least one eye witness account of Jesus. I don't see how he could not believe that Jesus was flesh and blood, having met Peter.

Now it could be that Peter didn't believe it. But that's hard to believe too, since he was a major player in the stories that would have been floating about in the per Markan material. Why would he not stop them? Why would he not come out and say "Jesus who? there was no guy named 'Jesus' he's just an etherial cosmic savior figure of the gnostics?"

Paul also met other eye witness, espeicially if you are willing to believe Acts. If not, he speaks of Andronikus and Junia who were Apostels and who were with the Lord.

Metacrock · 04-23-2003, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Crisor:

Paul, according to his letters, got all the information he needed about Jesus from divine revelation. But proponents of the historical Jesus think that Paul learned about the earthly Jesus when he visited with Peter and James in Jerusalem. We don't have any indication of what Peter or James told Paul, and Doherty uses the incident as one of the points of silence where you would have expected Paul to say something (about visiting the place where Jesus was crucified or preached, or listening to Peter's stories, or whatever.)

Meta =>why is argument from silence valid when you use it, but not when we use it? I mean we point out that no one denied that Jesus was a real guy, at least not in the first three centuries, and not at all as far I know. But you act like that is nothing, that just doesnt' even matter, isn't worthy of mentioning, but because Paul doesn't give us a long thing about what Peter said to him, that proves it!?? There is also the theory that Paul wrote a Gospel, which I presume would have more about what Peter said. Now there's a "piont of silence" for you. We dont' have it, but he may have written it.

Quote:

If, as some believe, Jesus was based on a person who had lived 100 years before, the scant references in Paul's letters that can be interpeted as referring to a HJ might be consistant with Paul having some hearsay knowledge of a person who lived a long time ago.

Meta =>that's based upon a conjecture about the teacher of righteiousness at Qumran, which wouldn't even come up if it wasn't for a misunderstood statment suppossedly saying he was crucified (which doesn't)

Metacrock · 04-23-2003, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Actually, Crossan hypothesizes that the "Cross Gospel" behind the canonicals and the Gospel of Peter ended not with an empty tomb, which is Markan, but with a resurrection appearance.

Meta =>I'm refurring to a statment Koester makes that Crosson agrees with him about the Passion Narrative ending with the empty tomb. That's not necessarily where he places the end of the Cross Gospel, because that plugs in other sources. Apparently Koester says that Crosson agrees with his (Koester's) theory that the PN is all one long source ending in tomb, but epiphanies coming from other sources are added in the PreMarkan material.

Quote:

Crossan contributed the section on chapter 16 of Mark in The Passion in Mark, edited by Verner H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976). In this essay, Crossan argued that the empty tomb story finds no corroboration before Mark, that the empty tomb story is only found after Mark where other authors have copied it over, and that the empty tomb story in Mark is congruent with Mark's narrative aims. On this basis, Crossan regards the empty tomb story as the creation of the evangelist Mark.

Meta =>I'm only going by Koester's statment. I can't imagine a scholar of his stature, who I'm sure knows Crosson and proabaly plays bridge with him all the time, would be wrong about that. But maybe he is.

Quote:

It is in the 1976 essay that Crossan laid down his dictum, which was repeated in his 1991 book The Historical Jesus: "With regard to the body of Jesus, by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care. Why should even the soldiers themselves remember the death and disposal of a nobody?" (p. 394)

In 1994, Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography was published. On p. 154, Crossan states: "What actually and historically happened to the body of Jesus can best be judged by watching how later Christian accounts slowly but steadily increased the reverantial dignity of their burial acconts. But what was at the beginning that necessitated such an intensive volume of apologetic insistence? If the Romans did not observe the Deuteronomic decree, Jesus' dead body would have been left on the cross for the wild beasts. If the Romans did observe the decree, the soldiers would have made certain Jesus was dead and then buried him themselves as part of their job. In either case, his body left on the cross or in a whallow grave barely covered with dirt and stones, the dogs were waiting. And his followers, who had fled, would know that, too. Watch, then, how the horror of that brutal truth is sublimated through hope and imagination into its opposite." Crossan proceeds to trace a development from the hypothetical Cross Gospel with a burial by Jesus' enemies, through Mark with a person who is both in power (with the enemies) and a friend ("waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God"), through Matthew and Luke who try to make better sense of Mark's Joseph of Arimathea, and finally to John in which Jesus is given a full regal burial.

In 1998, Crossan's The Birth of Christianity came out. Crossan states (p. 552): "Mark created both the women's discovery of the empty tomb and the burial story needed in preparation for it." After some detailed elaboration, Crossan concludes (p. 555): "Mark's story presented the tradition with double dilemmas. First, if Joseph was in the council, he was against Jesus; if he was for Jesus, he was not in the council. Second, if Joseph buried Jesus from piety or duty, he would have done the same for the two other crucified criminals; yet if he did that, there could be no empty-tomb sequence. None of these points is unanswerable, but together they persuade me that Mark created that burial by Joseph of Arimathea in 15:32-47. It contains no pre-Markan tradition."

So it seems safe to say that, at no point in Crossan's academic career has he held to the hypothesis that Jesus was buried in a tomb that was found empty three days later, or that this story predates Mark. Instead, Crossan consistently argues that the tomb burial by Joseph of Arimathea is a fiction, although Crossan gives somewhat different arguments in each of his books.

I have not posted this to defend Crossan's arguments against the tomb burial of Jesus but rather to show that it is baseless to claim that Crossan believes that the empty tomb is contained in a pre-Markan passion narrative.

Meta =>Koester seems to indicate otherwise.

best,
Peter Kirby [/B][/QUOTE]

Metacrock · 04-23-2003, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock

Meta =>I'm refurring to a statment Koester makes that Crosson agrees with him about the Passion Narrative ending with the empty tomb. That's not necessarily where he places the end of the Cross Gospel, because that plugs in other sources. Apparently Koester says that Crosson agrees with his (Koester's) theory that the PN is all one long source ending in tomb, but epiphanies coming from other sources are added in the PreMarkan material.

Meta =>I'm only going by Koester's statment. I can't imagine a scholar of his stature, who I'm sure knows Crosson and proabaly plays bridge with him all the time, would be wrong about that. But maybe he is.

Meta =>OK now I'm confussed becasue it seems like Koester and Crosson disagree on the epiphanic accounts coming from different sources. But in any case, I know that Koester proves that a preMarkan redaction of the PN existed, and he feels it included the empty tomb. He does a good job of proving it.

best,
Peter Kirby [/B]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Metacrock · 04-23-2003, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Just a note: the Greek language does not have an indefinite article (that is, there is no "a" or "an"). I don't have the Greek text before me (I salivate at the thought of possessing the TLG cd-rom with tons of Greek texts), but it is obviously problematic to place stress on the particular wording of an English translation.

best,
Peter Kirby

Yea, i know. Greek was my undergrad language. But even so, if he said "you invent Christ" it would the same meaning. Because the Jews (of which Tripho was one) did't think of Christ as his first name, they thought of it as a title to which many people might aspire. The context was not provided. But just looking at the quote come on now, does that really telll us "Jesus didn't exist?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-22-2003, 03:39 AM	#191
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Meta, you really ought to pay attention to your spelling and attempt to achieve a proper arrangement of your posts. Its the most basic thing! presentation! Otherwise, cool work guys. Good stuff.

04-22-2003, 10:59 AM	#194
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Thanks for that link CA. You are speculating about the 20 years - correct?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.